10OctoberBOA __ v: �►Q�
_.moi,. �,
14.',;1 .'•...
•
;' �' MINUTES
�-' !77S
RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 4, 1988
There was a meeting of the Randolph County Board of
Adjustment on Tuesday, October 4, 1988, at 7 :00 p.m. , in
Courtroom B, Randolph County Courthouse, 145 Worth Street,
Asheboro, North Carolina .
1 . Chairman Doyle Stout called to order the Randolph
County Board of Adjustment meeting at 7 : 00 p.m.
2 . Hal Johnson, Planning Director, called roll of the
members: Doyle Stout, Chairman, present; Lynden
Craven, Vice Chairman, present; Ray Farlow, pre-
sent; Charles Adams, present; Guy Troy, present;
Bill Dorsett , present; Arlie Culp, Alternate,
present (substituting for resigned member Tal
Harrison.
3 . Chairman Stout asked for a motion to approve the
Minutes for the September 27 , 1988, Board of
Adjustment meeting. Charles Adams made the motion,
seconded by Guy Troy, to approve the Minutes of
September 27th. The motion passed.
4 . Hal Johnson reviewed with the Board the case on the
agenda: Proposed Development - WOODFIELD ACRES
SUBDIVISION; Providence Township; SR 2114; 372.78
acres. Herman K. McDowell & W. Reid Kearns -
Developers.
5. Chairman Stout asked the Board for discussion
concerning the case and stated that all Conclusions
would be based on Findings of Fact.
Guy Troy noted that one of the issues the Board
must consider is the request that it be considered
a pre existing, non conforming use; but the Board
heard several arguments (both for and against) that
had no bearing on the Board' s decision. Troy
stated that also there was no changes in the zoning
district of this are before or after September 6,
1988. Troy added that he was concerned that the
Board has not received any evidence of an option,
between the developers and the owner , of the
property. Troy stated that the Board had asked for
this information during the September 27 , 1988
public hearing.
Bill Dorsett stated that the expenses that were
incurred (by the developers) were done so in a
preliminary manner, that these expenses were
necessary to bring a preliminary subdivision plat
before the Board. Dorsett stated that no evidence
was offered that showed any added amount of
expenses were incurred. Dorsett added that the
developers did not challenge the changes made to
the County Zoning Ordinance. Dorsett also said
that because a copy of the option contract was not
presented to the Board, that the Board would have
to assume that no money was given for the contract.
Guy Troy stated that there has been no development
on this property either before or since the changes
October 4, 1988
Page 1
in the Zoning Ordinance, that the property is still
only farmland.
Bill Dorsett stated that the developers are not the
owners of the property, and they (the developers)
have failed to show any peculiar hardship. Dorsett
said the Board has in no way stopped the applicants
from developing the property and that the dove-
lopers could still come before the Planning Board
and request this type of development. Dorsett
added that the Board had been given an appeal and
an amendment to the appeal that accussed the
Planning Director of faulting in area outside of
his responsibility.
6. Hal Johnson, Planning Director, gave a summary of
Findings of Fact .
A: Prior to September 6, 1988, the property was
zoned "Residential Agricultural" . After
September 6, 1988, the property was still
zoned "Residential Agricultural" . All deve-
lopers of new major subdivisions were required
to petition to appropriate zoning districts.
B: The developers do not own the property.
C: At the Planning Board meeting on June 7, a
number of concerns were expressed by persons
present. The Planning Board did not deny the
subdivision petition, but delayed until
further study could be taken in order to
investigate these concerns.
D: On July 11, 1988, County Director of Planning
did not state that the developers were in
full compliance with all County requirements .
E: No evidence was presented that the developers
paid any deposit in consideration for the
option contract. Many of the expenditures
made were made in order for County approval.
F: The Petitioners do not own the property and no
County Planning Board approval has been
obtained.
G: The Developers said at public hearing that
they did not challenge the correctness of
zoning changes made by the Board of Commis-
sioners on September 6, 1988-
H: Developers presented no evidence that they
would suffer unnecessary hardship in they
complied with the Ordinance.
I : Developers presented no facts to show that the
new zoning regulations would prohibit them to
develop the subdivision as they desired. The
Developers did not present any evidence as to
why they could not resubmit their plans for a
manufactured housing subdivision under current
County Zoning regulations.
J: No hardship was experienced by the Developers
that was peculiar to their property.
K: No development of any type was currently on
the property other than farming.
L: Evidence introduced by the developers relative
to soils, topography, and septic tanks may be
relevant to the Board of Adjustment as con-
siders the developers request.
October 4, 1988
Page 2
M: Preliminary Plat approval is the responsi-
bility of the Planning Board.
7 . Guy Troy made the motion, based on the Findings of
Fact presented at public hearing, that it should be
the Board' s Conclusion that there is no pre
existing, non-conforming use as contended by the
applicants. Thergfore , it is Ordered that the
decision of the Director of Planning & Zoning
requiring that the property be located in the
appropriate Zoning District be Affiimgd . Lynden
Craven seconded the motion .
Hal Johnson, Planning Director, called roll for a
vote on the motion: Doyle Stout, Chairman, with
the motion; Lynden Craven, Vice Chairman, with the
motion; Bill Dorsett, with the motion; Guy Troy,
with the motion; Ray Farlow, with the motion;
Charles Adams, present; and Arlie Culp, with the
motion.
The request was unanimously denied.
Hal Johnson explained to the applicants that they
would be presented with a written document of the
Order of the Board of Adjustment. Johnson stated
that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the
decision made by the Board of Adjustment, they
would have thirty (30) days to appeal the decision
to a higher court .
8. The Board of Adjustment meeting adjourned at 7 :14
p.m.
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Planning Di ector
Date S421=-1-etary
1p'4y
SIP
1779
October 4, 1988 Page 3